[NYT] President Obama announced on Sunday thatMount McKinley was being renamed Denali, using his executive power to restore an Alaska Native name with deep cultural significance to the tallest mountain in North America.

The move came on the eve of Mr. Obama’s trip to Alaska, where he will spend three days promoting aggressive action to combat climate change, and is part of a series of steps he will make there meant to address the concerns of Alaska Native tribes.

It is the latest bid by the president to fulfill his 2008 campaign promise to improve relations between the federal government and the nation’s Native American tribes, an important political constituency that has a long history of grievances against the government.

Denali’s name has long been seen as one such slight, regarded as an example of cultural imperialism in which a Native American name with historical roots was replaced by an American one having little to do with the place.

The central Alaska mountain has officially been called Mount McKinley for almost a century. In announcing that Sally Jewell, the secretary of the interior, had used her power to rename it, Mr. Obama was paying tribute to the state’s Native population, which has referred to the site for generations as Denali, meaning “the high one” or “the great one.”

The peak, at more than 20,000 feet, plays a central role in the creation story of the Koyukon Athabascans, a group that has lived in Alaska for thousands of years.

Mr. Obama, freed from the political constraints of an impending election in the latter half of his second term, was also moving to put to rest a yearslong fight over the name of the mountain that has pit Alaska against electorally powerful Ohio, the birthplace of President William McKinley, for whom it was christened in 1896.

The government formally recognized the name in 1917, and efforts to reverse the move began in Alaska in 1975. In an awkward compromise struck in 1980, the national park surrounding it was named Denali National Park and Preserve, but the mountain continued to be called Mount McKinley.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, introduced legislation in January to rename the peak, but Ohio lawmakers sought to block the move. In June, an Interior Department official said in testimony before Congress that the administration had “no objection” to Ms. Murkowski’s proposed change.

The Now Owned Corporate Media Are Too Busy For Ratings And Ignore The Enormity Of Donald Trump’s Racism, However, Trump’s Ideas Weren’t Born Because He Is Running For President. Donald Trump Has Been, Is And Always Will Be A Racist, Bigot, A Charlatan And Mountebank.

Donald Trump is more dangerous than the Iran Deal because Trump is sowing discord from inside America, creating Anarchy with people hiding behind Anarchists to cover up their racism. This man Donald Trump is a product of the extreme right-wing within the Republican Party.

GEORGE WALLACE ALABAMA RACIST GOVERNOR!

“Anthony and Henry Lee were no different than thousands of other black Southern teenagers caught in the intense battle over the implementation of Brown v. Board of Education. But their names would go down in history.

On Sept. 2, the day classes were scheduled to start for the fall term; Wallace issued an executive order shutting the school for a week and instructed the state police to enforce his decree.

Within days, Judge Johnson and four other federal trial judges in Alabama jointly issued a restraining order instructing the governor to stop interfering with the court-ordered desegregation of public schools in Birmingham, Mobile and Tuskegee. When Wallace ordered the Alabama National Guard to stop any nonwhite children from entering all-white schools, President John F. Kennedy federalized the guard and had them return to their armories.

But the governor wasn’t through, and he declared the state would reimburse parents if they sent their children to a new all-white private school or an all-white public school in a neighboring district. When Tuskegee High’s doors opened Sept. 9, the only students attending were the black children. Wallace then ordered the school closed, leaving the traditionally all-black Tuskegee Institute High School as the only option for students of color.

Judge Johnson had the final word. He and two other federal judges jointly ordered the state to bus the black students to the all-white public schools and enjoined the state from offering any payments to white parents who sent their kids to the private school. He also ruled that Wallace’s actions starting on Sept. 2 were evidence that state officials controlled public education, not local leaders. That finding allowed Johnson to issue a statewide permanent desegregation order as part of Lee.”

If you look at the traits of a Charlatan he/she is a boastful unscrupulous pretender, confidence trickster, fraud, fraudster, impostor, and hoaxer.

Focusing on the Media if you would recall in 2003 they “willfully” went about promulgating George W Bush’s Invasion of Iraq to the point that those that disagreed were brutalized by the Media and, the same Media subsequently crucified George W Bush’s unscrupulous decision on Iraq.

Freedom of the Press has always been important because that is how a proper check on the Government is reported to The People, however, now that “all” of the Media are owned by Six [6] Corporations, there are no more Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Frank Reynolds, Barbara Walters Peter Jennings and definitely no Walter Cronkite.

Today, we don’t have Journalists but what we do have are a Hosts of People calling themselves Journalists when in truth and in fact, they are just HACKS for their Corporate Bosses. On every News Program they have Talking Head Pundits on the right and on the left, killing each other with garbage.

FACT: With the field of Republicans seeking the Presidency all squeezed together in the Crazy Clown Train, permeating such nonsense, we have become the laughing stock of the world. To hear Donald Trump given the opportunity to Mouth-Out that he would reinvade Iraq, Bomb them and steal the oil, sell it and give the money to our Veterans, well, how much lower we can go?

The advocating of Donald Trump stupidity to remove United States Citizens born in this country and to have this stupidity echoed by Trump’s challengers in his Party and supported by the uninformed, ignorant, uneducated and brainwashed Republican Voters, the embarrassing is chilling.

Donald Trump and the other Republican Coyotes Political Posturing of repealing the Fourteenth Amendment To The Constitution is just that – ‘Posturing By Deranged Idiots.”

“Lindsay Graham knows that birthright citizenship is not about to be repealed. That would require an amendment to the Constitution. Two-thirds of both the House and the Senate would have to approve it, as would three-quarters of the states. Here in California, neither Meg Whitman nor Carly Fiorina, Republican candidates for governor and senator, respectively, supports the idea, nor do their Democratic opponents. So why is this issue being debated? Because it’s a freebie: Conservatives can tout it without fear of it coming to pass, thereby proving their toughness without having to take responsibility for the consequences.”

Let us hope for the continued good of America that the Voters use their common sense and morality and not their emotions and deny entry to the White House to any of these raging lunatics!

Jeb Bush is blaming Iraq’s chaos, ISIS and the total broken Middle-East that his Brother George W Bush caused, on President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Right now Jeb is in trouble because of the man with the Dead Animal’s Bleached Hair On His Head. Jeb is chasing the “Hair” day and night and he is manufacturing untruths that are putting him in even worse of a situation because, people are not stupid as the Bush’s think they are.

[NYT] “In politics, the smallest things often turn out to be the most telling ones, and so it is with the man who was supposed to be the Republican front-runner, who once inspired such rapture among party elders and whose entrance into the presidential race they yearned and clamored for.

They not only got their wish, they got it with punctuation: Jeb! That’s Jeb Bush’s logo, and the exclamation point is the tell. None of the other Republican presidential candidates has anything like it. None of the Democrats either. It’s a declaration of passion that only someone worried about a deficit of it would issue. Methinks thou doth exclaim too much.

Before Bush announced his candidacy, talk of his vulnerabilities focused largely on certain positions — his defense of Common Core educational standards, his advocacy for immigration reform — that were anathema to many voters in the Republican primaries. He was sure to catch flak.

But catching fire is his bigger problem. He can’t do it. In a bloated field of bellicose candidates, he’s a whisper, a blur, starved of momentum, bereft of urgency and apt to make news because he stumbles, not because he soars. Can he soar? Or even sprint?

“I’m the tortoise in the race,” he told a group of voters in Florida not long ago. “But I’m a joyful tortoise.”

And Donald Trump’s a demented peacock and I’m a crotchety hippo. Reverse anthropomorphism is a fun game, but if you’re playing it in the service of selling yourself, best not to summon a sluggish creature with a muted affect and an impenetrable shell.

Republicans should have seen this turtle coming. In some sense they did. Bush’s fans and backers praised him as a thoughtful “policy wonk” and conceded that he wasn’t any dynamo at the lectern or on the trail.

But they downgraded the importance of dynamism, maybe because they didn’t expect so much competition, including Trump. (It’s “the race between the tortoise and the bad hair,” cracked Jay Leno last week.) They couldn’t envision the way in which 16 rivals would rob Bush of clear distinction and definition.

Sure, he speaks Spanish and has a Mexican-born wife, but Marco Rubio also speaks Spanish and has two Cuban-born parents. Sure, he was twice elected governor of a state that’s not reliably red, but so were Scott Walker, Chris Christie and John Kasich.

He’s not the most eloquent or the most inspiring, so his backers began to pitch him as the most adult. But at that first debate, Kasich stole even that superlative from him.

What’s left? He’s raised the most money, some of which he’ll use for television ads much sooner than anyone had anticipated. He’ll try to buy the oomph that he can’t organically generate.

Oomph is what that big speech last week — in which he blamed Hillary Clinton for the rise of the Islamic State — was largely about. He was flexing his audacity and independence, showing that his surname wouldn’t cow him from going after a Democratic rival on any matter, including Iraq. It took gall to edit his older brother out of the diatribe. It took guts to go with a diatribe in the first place.

Did it help? Polls suggest not. A CNN/ORC survey that was released on Tuesday showed that he doesn’t fare nearly as well as Trump when Republican voters are asked whom they trust most on the economy, on immigration and on battling Islamic extremists.

He runs afoul of the moment. Voters right now are more enamored of outsiders than usual, as the traction of not just Trump but also two other Republican candidates who have never held elective office — Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina — demonstrates.

Voters have had enough of protocol and pieties. Thus Trump thrives in a party that he constantly browbeats and shows no real loyalty toward, while Bernie Sanders flourishes among Democrats though he has repeatedly railed against them and doesn’t technically identify as one.

For some alienated voters, supporting either of these two insurgents is the same as raising a middle finger to establishment politicians and to politics as usual, and tactful, tasteful Bush can never be a middle finger. More like a pinkie.

he pinkie may prevail. In the Bush camp there’s a theory, or perhaps an anxiety-quelling fantasy, that the Trump mania and the related craziness will benefit Bush, who can methodically build support and incrementally lengthen his stride while the glare and heat are on others.

Trump burns out, the field eventually winnows, and Bush is saved by a superlative after all. He’s the most durablecandidate.

It’s a plausible scenario. But it’s hardly a joyful one. And there’s only one way to punctuate it — with a question mark.”

As a Man I think it is fair to say that not all but many Men are Misogynists and Chauvinistic towards women, despite having Mothers, Daughters, Sisters, Aunts and Nieces. Of course this is very damning but what is even worse is when Women hate other Women because they are either intimidated by Women that are highly successful and a force to be reckoned with.

I am supporting Hillary Clinton as I did in 2008 to be America’s First Female President and in comments from my Blog, Facebook Page, Twitter and other Social Media, I am unequivocally surprised at the statements made by other women towards the Former First Lady, US Senator, Secretary of State and the most viable Candidate for President in the upcoming 2016 Presidential Race.

[Psychology Dot Com] “As I overheard a group of women this past week in line at a store verbally tear apart a couple of women within their social circle who happened to be absent, I was taken aback by the vitriol. As I reflected on how women talk about other women, I thought about what I’ve heard so many women say over the years:

“Girls are so much crueler to each other than men.” Based on fifteen years of clinical work with women who represent virtually every possible demographic variable (Come on, I trained in New York City), I can assuredly report that the women I’ve worked with report more critical views of other women than the men do with their own male peers.

Most women will tell you that they have survived at least one mean girl in their past: a girl who dismissed, put down, or even socially tormented them. What does the research say? It probably goes without saying that the research is complex, particularly because it is challenging (or impossible?) to measure a critical, negative or hostile attitude given the self-serving bias that makes people want to see themselves as good and upstanding. Fortunately, recent years have seen an uptick in attention when it comes to the research.

Research shows that women during the college years may have negative attitudes about particular types of other women. Vrangalova and colleagues (2013) found that female college students were less likely to want to be friends with another female who was seen as sexually promiscuous, when compared to the rate for male college students who wanted to be friends with a promiscuous male peer. The study showed that the women clearly noticed the promiscuous woman and also had negative beliefs about her as a result.

In terms of women’s approach to competition, research from Benenson and colleagues (2011) is particularly interesting. According to the study, women may be more sensitive than men to social exclusion, and when they feel threatened by the prospect of being left out, a woman’s first response may be to socially exclude a third party. Again, for any woman who’s been on the receiving end of a female bully, this will come as no surprise.

In addition, Nicki Crick is a true rock star of gender research. Crick has devoted many years to investigating relational aggression, the type of aggression females appear to engage in more regularly than males (who tend to engage in more physical aggression). Crick would most likely argue that women’s negative attitudes are actually a manifestation of relational agression. In a study examining the attitudes and aggressive behavior of fourth and fifth grade boys and girls, Crick and Bigbee (1998) found that girls were significantly more relationally victimized, while boys were significantly more overtly victimized.

In talking about the influence a mother has on her daughter, we also have to talk about social learning theory. Social learning theory reminds us that modeling has much to do with how children learn. The real but graphic truth is that there are many mothers out there in the world who aren’t so sweet to their daughters, and readily say and do things that would make many of us cringe. It’s critical to note that much of what is said and done by mothers that is ultimately hurtful was engaged under the veiled intention of having ‘her best interests in mind.’ I have found that women who are mean-spirited about other women were often raised by a mother who probably didn’t like herself and didn’t feel warmly toward women, in general, either.

The other factor that I see at work in my practice is anxiety. I find that the majority of female criticism actually stems from feeling inadequate in an area of life they value highly. For example, I have a female client who is extremely critical of other’s parenting styles, but it’s simultaneously worth noting that she has had great difficulty becoming pregnant and is currently in the midst of fertility treatments. With my client, she feels inadequate and defensive, and she defends herself by criticizing other women’s parenting styles. In other words, she’s not critical of other women because she thinks less of them; she is covetous of what they have instead.

The women I have seen clinically over the years also have reported far greater anxiety in the appearance department than men, and I see that the pressure women feel from men and the media to fit a certain physical type of thinness and beauty gets transformed to the point that they turn it on each other. Interestingly, one 2012 study from Snapp and colleagues found that young women with high family support and low levels of perceived socio-cultural pressure from family, friends and the media regarding the importance of achieving a ‘thin and beautiful’ ideal had a more positive body image. It makes perfect sense, too, so let’s all agree to watch the amount of pressure we inflict on young girls.

I know, I know: Things seem to look good for Hillary in 2016, and there are lots of other examples of the progress American culture has made in terms of gender equality. Yet women continue to earn less money today than men and occupy fewer positions in politics and at the heads of Fortune 500 companies. Independent of what the research shows, it’s understandable on a common-sense level if women feel that they must work hard to secure whatever social power they can, and this may sometimes take the form of exclusionary practices with other women. When it comes to our kids, I believe that there is much we can do and say to give our daughters the sense that their lives will be equally important to those of men, and I’ll teach my daughter that she’ll get there by supporting—and not criticizing—other girls. If I’m careful, one day she’ll be a woman who will speak positively about other women.”

American Psychological Association (1998, March 26). Boys And Girls Are Cruel To Each Other In Different Ways — But The Effects Are Equally Harmful. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com (link is external)­/releases/1998/03/980326075743.htm

For the cover story of our Aug. 2 issue, Jim Rutenberg wrote aboutefforts over the last 50 years to dismantle the protections in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the landmark piece of legislation that cleared barriers between black voters and the ballot. The story surveyed a broad sweep of history and characters, from United States Chief Justice John Roberts to ordinary citizens like 94-year-old Rosanell Eaton, a plaintiff in the current North Carolina case arguing to repeal voting restrictions enacted in 2013. The magazine received an unusual volume of responses to this article, most notably from President Barack Obama.

‘‘We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union. …’’ It’s a cruel irony that the words that set our democracy in motion were used as part of the so-called literacy test designed to deny Rosanell and so many other African-Americans the right to vote. Yet more than 70 years ago, as she defiantly delivered the Preamble to our Constitution, Rosanell also reaffirmed its fundamental truth. What makes our country great is not that we are perfect, but that with time, courage and effort, we can become more perfect. What makes America special is our capacity to change.

Nearly three decades after Rosanell testified to her unbroken faith in this country, that faith was vindicated. The Voting Rights Act put an end to literacy tests and other forms of discrimination, helping to close the gap between our promise that all of us are created equal and our long history of denying some of us the right to vote. The impact was immediate, and profound — the percentage of African-Americans registered to vote skyrocketed in the years after the Voting Rights Act was passed.

But as Rutenberg chronicles, from the moment the ink was dry on the Voting Rights Act, there has been a concentrated effort to undermine this historic law and turn back the clock on its progress. His article puts the recent push to restrict Americans’ voting rights in its proper context. These efforts are not a sign that we have moved past the shameful history that led to the Voting Rights Act. Too often, they are rooted in that history. They remind us that progress does not come easy, but that it must be vigorously defended and built upon for ourselves and future generations.

I am where I am today only because men and women like Rosanell Eaton refused to accept anything less than a full measure of equality. Their efforts made our country a better place. It is now up to us to continue those efforts. Congress must restore the Voting Rights Act. Our state leaders and legislatures must make it easier — not harder — for more Americans to have their voices heard. Above all, we must exercise our right as citizens to vote, for the truth is that too often we disenfranchise ourselves.

Rosanell is now 94 years old. She has not given up. She’s still marching. She’s still fighting to make real the promise of America. She still believes that We the People have the awesome power to make our union more perfect. And if we join her, we, too, can reaffirm the fundamental truth of the words Rosanell recited.

[NYT] A defiant Donald J. Trump suggested on Sunday that he had been singled out for attacks by the hosts of last week’s widely watched Republican presidential debate and again threatened a third-party White House bid if he was not treated “reasonably fairly” by party leaders.

In a rapid-fire series of phone interviews with four Sunday television news programs, Mr. Trump defended his record on women’s issues, arguing that his real estate company had been among the first to put women in charge of major construction projects and that he had “always had a great relationship to the women.” He continued his criticism of the moderators of the debate on the Fox News network saying that no other candidate had been subjected to similarly tough questioning.

And he struck back at critics of his remarks about Megyn Kelly, one of the Fox moderators, which had resulted in his invitation to a meeting of conservatives in Atlanta on Saturday being rescinded. He said that his appraisal of Ms. Kelly’s motives for questioning him sharply during the debate — that she had “blood coming out of her wherever” — was being misconstrued by his rivals as a reference to menstruation in an effort to dampen his surge in the Republican primary. He had made similar remarks, he told more than one interviewer, about her co-moderator, Chris Wallace.